Chapter V.—Subject Continued. Objection, that the
Son’s eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father, introduces
the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His eternity.
The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be understood in
real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking of the
Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is the
Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget.

14. When these points
are thus proved, their profaneness goes further. ‘If there never
was, when the Son was not,’ say they, ‘but He is eternal,
and coexists with the Father, you call Him no more the Father’s
Son, but brother19141914 This
was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf. de Syn. 51, note 8. It
is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil.
contr. Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alexandria with George of
Cappadocia, a.d. 356–8, and Athan. wrote
these Discourses in the latter year, as the de Syn. at the end
of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding to the
Anomœan arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn.
l.c. where he says, ‘they say, “as you have
written,”’ §51. ᾽Ανόμοιος
κατ᾽ οὐσίαν
is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object
that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are ἀδελφοὶ, so
did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second
and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2..’ O insensate
and contentious! For if we said only that He was eternally with the
Father, and not His Son, their pretended scruple would have some
plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal, we also confess
Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that is begotten be
considered brother of Him who begets? And if our faith is in Father and
Son, what brotherhood is there between them? and how can the Word be
called brother of Him whose Word He is? This is not an objection of men
really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies; but it is a
Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon’s words,
‘through desire separate themselves19151915Prov. xviii.
1.’ from the truth. For the Father and
the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin19161916 Vid.
de Syn. §51., that we may account Them brothers, but the
Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him; and the Father is
Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not
brother. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring19171917 In
other words, by the Divine γεννησις is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in
the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset
of the controversy to the phrase ‘always Father, always
Son,’ Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that,
‘if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never
such in act, ἐνεργὸς, but was ἀργός.’ Cyril.
Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that
‘works,’ ἔργα, are made ἔξωθεν,
‘from without;’ but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here
says, is neither a ‘work’ nor ‘from without.’
And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first in posse
then in act, God is δυνάμει τε
καὶ ἐνεργεί&
139· πατήρ.
Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like
manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in æterna,
Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking
apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And
Arius scoffs at ἀειγεννής and ἀγεννητογενής. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had
said, ὁ σωτὴρ ἀεὶ
γεννᾶται. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him
the Radiance, ἄναρχὸν
καὶ
ἀειγενές. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit
Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de
Trin. ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus
Abucara, ‘Since the Son’s generation does but signify His
having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He
is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (κυρίως) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the
Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us
generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the
existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is
itself an end, τέλος, and is
perfect, τέλειον.’ Opusc 26. of the Father, He is rightly so called. For
never was the essence of the Father imperfect, that what is proper to
it should be added afterwards19181918de
Decr. 22, note 9.; nor, as man from
man, 315has the Son been begotten, so
as to be later than His Father’s existence, but He is God’s
offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is ever, He exists
eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the
imperfection of their nature19191919 Infr.
§26 fin., and de Decr. 12, note 2., God’s
offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect19201920 Vid.
supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril.
Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the
objection; the Arians said, ‘How can God be ever perfect, who
added to Himself a Son?’ Athan. answers, ‘How can the Son
not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?’ vid. Greg. Nyssen,
contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78.
As to the Son’s perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph.
Hær. 76. pp. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession
from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas
S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not ἀτελῆ
πρότερον,
εἶτα τέλειον,
ὥσπερ νόμος
τῆς ἡμετέρας
γενέσεως, Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against
Eunomius, that the Son is τέλειος, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual
work, but as a χαρακτὴρ, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated
from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him
perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16
fin.. If then He is not a Son, but a work made
out of nothing, they have but to prove it; and then they are at
liberty, as if imagining about a creature, to cry out, ‘There was
once when He was not;’ for things which are originated were not,
and have come to be. But if He is Son, as the Father says, and the
Scriptures proclaim, and ‘Son’ is nothing else than what is
generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His
Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance; what is to be said but that, in
maintaining ‘Once the Son was not,’ they rob God of His
Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once
without His proper Word and Wisdom, and that the Light was once without
radiance, and the Fountain was once barren and dry19211921de
Decr. 12, 15.? For though they pretend alarm at the name
of time, because of those who reproach them with it, and say, that He
was before times, yet whereas they assign certain intervals, in which
they imagine He was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally
suggesting times, and imputing to God an absence of Reason19221922 Ib.
22, note 1, infr. §19..

15. But if on the other hand, while they
acknowledge with us the name of ‘Son,’ from an
unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny that
the Son is the proper offspring of the Father’s essence, on the
ground that this must imply parts and divisions19231923De
Decr. §§10, 11.;
what is this but to deny that He is very Son, and only in name to call
Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous error, to have material
thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their
proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does
but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they understand not
how God is19241924 Infr.
§23., and what the Father is, now that,
foolish men, they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father.
And persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be
a Son of God, demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and
exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. If then, as
you say, ‘the Son is from nothing,’ and ‘was not
before His generation,’ He, of course, as well as others, must be
called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other
creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to
tell us then, of what He is partaker19251925De
Syn. §45, 51.. All other
things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He
partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the
Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the
latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He
partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is
participated, what is it or whence19261926Nic. Def. 9, note 4.? If it be
something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker
of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be
even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor
can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He
has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious,
when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son19271927Matt. iii. 17.,’ and when the Son says that God is
His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but
from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other
than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there
being in that case something between this that is from the Father and
the essence of the Son, whatever that be19281928 Here
is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Essence. When it is said
that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity to the
Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father, also is
the Son. Hence the force of the word ὁμοούσιον, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was
distinguished from it by the particle ὁμοῦ,
‘together,’ which implied a difference as well as unity;
whereas ταὐτοούσιον
or συνούσιον
implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a
confusion. The Arians, on the other hand, as in the instance of
Eusebius, &c., supr. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 26, note 3;
considered the Father and the Son two οὐσίαι.
The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Essence is both the
Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not
itself ἀγέννητος
or γεννητή; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius,
Epiph. Hær. 76. 10. Cf. de Decr. §30,
Orat. iii. §36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid. de
Syn. 45, note 1. ‘Vera et æterna substantia in se tota
permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis
indulsit.’ Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, ‘Filius
in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque
mutuam, sed per viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem.’
Trin. vii. 31..

16. Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly
and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the
Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to
say that God is wholly participated, and that He 316begets; and what does begetting signify but a
Son? And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the
grace of the Spirit coming from Him19291929De
Decr. §31.; and this
shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken
from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we
are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said ‘that ye
may be partakers in a divine nature193019302 Pet. i. 4.;’ as
says too the Apostle, ‘Know ye not, that ye are a temple of
God?’ and, ‘We are the temple of a living God193119311 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor.
vi. 16..’ And beholding the Son, we see the
Father; for the thought19321932ἔννοια, vid. de
Syn. §48 fin. and comprehension
of the Son, is knowledge concerning the Father, because He is His
proper offspring from His essence. And since to be partaken no one of
us would ever call affection or division of God’s essence (for it
has been shewn and acknowledged that God is participated, and to be
participated is the same thing as to beget); therefore that which is
begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence.
Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of
His own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God’s
essence, when we speak of ‘Son’ and
‘Offspring;’ but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and
true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. If then, as we have
stated and are shewing, what is the Offspring of the Father’s
essence be the Son, we cannot hesitate, rather we must be certain, that
the same19331933de
Decr. 17, 24. is the Wisdom and Word of the Father,
in and through whom He creates and makes all things; and His Brightness
too, in whom He enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will;
and His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated and
known, wherefore ‘He and His Father are one19341934John x. 30.,’ and whoso looketh on Him looketh on
the Father; and the Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the
new creation wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such
Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that
He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before His generation.
For he who thus speaks of that which is proper to the Father’s
essence, already blasphemes the Father Himself19351935de
Decr. 1, note.;
since he really thinks of Him what he falsely imagines of His
offspring.

1914 This
was an objection urged by Eunomius, cf. de Syn. 51, note 8. It
is implied also in the Apology of the former, §24, and in Basil.
contr. Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alexandria with George of
Cappadocia, a.d. 356–8, and Athan. wrote
these Discourses in the latter year, as the de Syn. at the end
of the next. It is probable then that he is alluding to the
Anomœan arguments as he heard them reported, vid. de Syn.
l.c. where he says, ‘they say, “as you have
written,”’ §51. ᾽Ανόμοιος
κατ᾽ οὐσίαν
is mentioned infr. §17. As the Arians here object
that the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity are ἀδελφοὶ, so
did they say the same in the course of the controversy of the Second
and Third. vid. Serap. i. 15. iv. 2.

1917 In
other words, by the Divine γεννησις is not meant an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact, in
the Divine Essence. Arius. not admitting this, objected at the outset
of the controversy to the phrase ‘always Father, always
Son,’ Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 749, and Eunomius argues that,
‘if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, the Father was never
such in act, ἐνεργὸς, but was ἀργός.’ Cyril.
Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril answers that
‘works,’ ἔργα, are made ἔξωθεν,
‘from without;’ but that our Lord, as S. Athanasius here
says, is neither a ‘work’ nor ‘from without.’
And hence he says elsewhere that, while men are fathers first in posse
then in act, God is δυνάμει τε
καὶ ἐνεργεί&
139· πατήρ.
Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65. note m). Victorinus in like
manner, says, that God is potentia et actione Deus sed in æterna,
Adv. Ar. i. p. 202; and he quotes S. Alexander, speaking
apparently in answer to Arius, of a semper generans generatio. And
Arius scoffs at ἀειγεννής and ἀγεννητογενής. Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen had
said, ὁ σωτὴρ ἀεὶ
γεννᾶται. ap. Routh. Reliq. t. 4. p. 304 and S. Dionysius calls Him
the Radiance, ἄναρχὸν
καὶ
ἀειγενές. Sent. Dion 15. S. Augustine too says, Semper gignit
Pater, et semper nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 4. Petav. de
Trin. ii. 5. n. 7, quotes the following passage from Theodorus
Abucara, ‘Since the Son’s generation does but signify His
having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He
is ever begotten. For it became Him, who is properly (κυρίως) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the
Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us
generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the
existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is
itself an end, τέλος, and is
perfect, τέλειον.’ Opusc 26.

1920 Vid.
supr. note 4. A similar passage is found in Cyril.
Thesaur. v. p. 42, Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting the
objection; the Arians said, ‘How can God be ever perfect, who
added to Himself a Son?’ Athan. answers, ‘How can the Son
not be eternal, since God is ever perfect?’ vid. Greg. Nyssen,
contr. Eunom. Append. p. 142. Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78.
As to the Son’s perfection, Aetius objects ap. Epiph.
Hær. 76. pp. 925, 6, that growth and consequent accession
from without were essentially involved in the idea of Sonship; whereas
S. Greg. Naz. speaks of the Son as not ἀτελῆ
πρότερον,
εἶτα τέλειον,
ὥσπερ νόμος
τῆς ἡμετέρας
γενέσεως, Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S. Basil argues against
Eunomius, that the Son is τέλειος, because He is the Image, not as if copied, which is a gradual
work, but as a χαρακτὴρ, or impression of a seal, or as the knowledge communicated
from master to scholar, which comes to the latter and exists in him
perfect, without being lost to the former. contr. Eunom. ii. 16
fin.

1928 Here
is taught us the strict unity of the Divine Essence. When it is said
that the First Person of the Holy Trinity communicates divinity to the
Second, it is meant that that one Essence which is the Father, also is
the Son. Hence the force of the word ὁμοούσιον, which was in consequence accused of Sabellianism, but was
distinguished from it by the particle ὁμοῦ,
‘together,’ which implied a difference as well as unity;
whereas ταὐτοούσιον
or συνούσιον
implied, with the Sabellians, an identity or a
confusion. The Arians, on the other hand, as in the instance of
Eusebius, &c., supr. p. 75, note 7; de Syn. 26, note 3;
considered the Father and the Son two οὐσίαι.
The Catholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Essence is both the
Father Ingenerate and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not
itself ἀγέννητος
or γεννητή; which was the objection urged against the Catholics by Aetius,
Epiph. Hær. 76. 10. Cf. de Decr. §30,
Orat. iii. §36 fin., Expos. Fid. 2. vid. de
Syn. 45, note 1. ‘Vera et æterna substantia in se tota
permanens, totam se coæternæ veritati nativitatis
indulsit.’ Fulgent. Resp. 7. And S. Hilary, ‘Filius
in Patre est et in Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, refusionemque
mutuam, sed per viventis naturæ perfectam nativitatem.’
Trin. vii. 31.